3 ms·

See this graph: https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-debt1900-2015.jpg https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-... D

by mises 8y ago

See this graph: https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-debt1900-2015.jpg https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-... Debt is at heights not seen since the War. Our debt is greater than our GDP. Look at that compared to the bump in the 80s-90s. This is both sides. Everyone keeps spending more. From one of the few who doesn't: "Imagine you and your spouse are hugely in debt from overspending, so you call a meeting & each agree that each of you will spend more. That's Congress."

ajross 8y ago
You're graphing the wrong thing. Yes, we owe more "dollars" on the balance sheet, but those dollars were borrowed at much (MUCH) lower interest rates. Here's the correct analysis: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S In fact federal interest payments on the not-seen-since-the-War debt balance is... about as low as it's ever been in the post war period. In fact the point where it really did get scary and showed a real bump that took a while to correct was precisely the republican spending spree of the 80's. Which we made it through just fine. All that debt you see in that hump? IT'S PAID. Seriously, amateur economics need to chill out about this. You are being fed a line by your political masters, you just haven't figured it out.
- mises 8y ago
  Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion. And yeah, there's lower interest. But it's still very, very hard to replay. In other words, interest comprises a few percent of the debt. The debt itself is a huge issue, too. I'm not being fed anything by anyone. I'm not particularly loyal to either political party. I think both suck. But I also think that's a ridiculous amount of money to have borrowed, and will be very difficult to pay off. And the politicians won't even stop spending.
  - ajross 8y ago
    > Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion. I'm sorry, but how exactly does your point work, numerically? If I take out a 30 year mortgage on a home with a monthly payment of $1000 and am given the choice of a balance of $100k with an interest rate of X and $200k with an interest rate of Y, why exactly is it not in my interest to take out the bigger loan? What breaks? It sounds like you're making a moral point, not a financial one. And while you claim not to be loyal to either party, you're parroting talking points pushed by only one. I think it's pretty clear who has your ear and counts on your vote, and is probably feeding you stuff to confirm your worldview in other ways.

by mises 8y ago

ajross 8y ago

You're graphing the wrong thing. Yes, we owe more "dollars" on the balance sheet, but those dollars were borrowed at much (MUCH) lower interest rates. Here's the correct analysis: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S In fact federal interest payments on the not-seen-since-the-War debt balance is... about as low as it's ever been in the post war period. In fact the point where it really did get scary and showed a real bump that took a while to correct was precisely the republican spending spree of the 80's. Which we made it through just fine. All that debt you see in that hump? IT'S PAID. Seriously, amateur economics need to chill out about this. You are being fed a line by your political masters, you just haven't figured it out.

mises 8y ago
Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion. And yeah, there's lower interest. But it's still very, very hard to replay. In other words, interest comprises a few percent of the debt. The debt itself is a huge issue, too. I'm not being fed anything by anyone. I'm not particularly loyal to either political party. I think both suck. But I also think that's a ridiculous amount of money to have borrowed, and will be very difficult to pay off. And the politicians won't even stop spending.
- ajross 8y ago
  > Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion. I'm sorry, but how exactly does your point work, numerically? If I take out a 30 year mortgage on a home with a monthly payment of $1000 and am given the choice of a balance of $100k with an interest rate of X and $200k with an interest rate of Y, why exactly is it not in my interest to take out the bigger loan? What breaks? It sounds like you're making a moral point, not a financial one. And while you claim not to be loyal to either party, you're parroting talking points pushed by only one. I think it's pretty clear who has your ear and counts on your vote, and is probably feeding you stuff to confirm your worldview in other ways.